And what rights do YOU have in determining whether medical science can essentially keep your body alive, forever, no matter what happens to that "you?"
Every human being of sound mind and decision-making ability has, by simply existing, the natural right to do anything they want to their own body, including terminating their own lives. For anyone else to step in and question or deny that natural right is simply unethical and wrong.
It's not anyone else's place to second-guess or challenge the decision of a vegetative person who, before becoming vegetative, decided against being kept alive should such circumstances ever occur.
In cases where no such wish was ever expressed by a person before they became vegetative, it should fall to immediately family/parent/guardian to step in and make the judgment call, since they are of sound mind and can make a decision whereas the vegetative person cannot.
yo YEAH igotz sum g00d ideaz! impr0v1`ng dat litercy shiznat!~
Seriously... I think we need to work on basic literacy before computer literacy. Being able to communicate coherently using a computer starts with knowing the differences among "there", "their", and "they're" and between "your" and "you're". Learning simple rules of language, such as "every sentence must have nouns and at least one verb", would be a great start.
Sony contracted the writing of, and performed distribution of, malware that risked the security of countless systems and generated IT costs for businesses and individuals alike. They should get the same level of punishment that Kevin Mitnick got: the Sony execs should be held in prison for years pending trial, and they should be barred from going anywhere near a computer. And, they should have to pay compensation to all the businesses for all the damage they caused.
Anything less than that isn't holding them accountable for the extent of their evil.
Not every volunteer project needs to be released to the world. You could just keep it to yourself or share it among a limited group of friends. When you volunteer to put your work in front of other people, you are making yourself responsible to others for your work, like it or not. If you don't want that responsibility, then don't release your work.
Analogy: if you volunteer for Habitat for Humanity, and you do a shitty job of building your part of the house, and so it collapses and kills people, does the fact that you "volunteered" somehow mean you're not ethically responsible? I really don't think so. It's a different matter if you build your own house, do a crappy job, and it collapses on you, because in that case you're not hurting anyone else.
Along those lines, here's a specific idea: create a reality TV show that documents the fierce competition among potential astronaut candidates. Get people to grow familiar with and look up to astronauts once more. Show people first-hand what risky, intense, and inherently dramatic business the space program is. That's what gets people interested.
Start working on things that average people (e.g. non-scientists) can get behind.
The shuttle program and space station may be incredibly valuable to the scientific community for research purposes, but there's nothing about it that captures the imaginations and emotions and concern of the general public. I hate to break it to NASA, but there's really nothing you can do to make average people excited about nerdy harcore scientific research.
That's the difference between today's NASA and the old JFK-era NASA.
You geek types out there may say, "but NASA isn't a popularity contest, it's a scientific endeavor". But you have to remember who funds NASA: ordinary taxpayers.
or how can it be delusional when so many people are suffering the same symptoms including pulling weird strands of fiber from their skin?
That's like asking, "How can Santa Claus not exist if so many children believe he does?"
There's been no hard evidence presented anywhere, in all the info and articles I've read about this online, that the fibers patients present are anything other than common microscopic bits of lint from their own clothing.
I believe that some patients have brought in fiber samples, and that some doctors have thoroughly evaluated them under electronic microscopes, etc. But look at the photos (note the microscopic scale) and think about the observed composition of the fibers (cellulose? as in plant organic cell materials? as in what you would expect to find in cotton or any other plant-derived cloth?).
There are many different, independet axes of development models that often get confused with one another during debates like this:
1) top-down versus bottom-up
2) commercial versus non-commercial
3) closed-source versus open-source
4) open-source versus GNU-defined "free software"
Please remember that these are all different axes. It's entirely possible to have top-down non-commercial "free software" development, just as it's entirely possibly to have bottom-up commercial closed-source development.
I think the Microsoft rep's statement confused "commercial" with "top-down". It's generally true that top-down development results in a clearer, more dependable plan and better-architected, more coherent software.
Why should we assume Microsoft or any OS maker (cause others have been guilty too) are printing realistic reqs that are based on OS + apps when more than two decades of desktop computing say otherwise?
Well, I'm not assuming. I'm a Microsoft employee and I'm running weekly builds of Vista on a secondary box here in my office. My personal, nonscientific observation (not an official statement from my employer, mind you) is that it (running without the 3D desktop stuff, since my machine doesn't have a capable 3D board) seems not to require anything more hardware-intensive than what XP requires. Then again, I don't use a lot of the added crap... er, features... like the sidebar and widgets and newer start menu with search functionality, so maybe that helps.
I'd guess that Vista builds will get more optimized, not less, as it approaches release. So I'm not too worried.
When web browsing with Firefox, I tend to average in the ballpark of 20-30 tabs open (I open every article from every news site in a new tab, and then make use of session saving to eventually read through all the articles I stuck in a tab because they were of interest to me). When using Photoshop, it's typically to scan/edit photos at high-resolution (say, 800 dpi, 48-bit resolution). When using VirtualDub, it's typically to edit and recompress MPEG2 files recorded from my TV capture card to DivX+MP3 format AVI files. All of that kind of stuff simultaneously eats up a lot of RAM. I always have anti-spyware, anti-virus, and intelligent disk-defragmenter software monitoring in real-time. I keep MSN Messenger running just about all the time.
So yeah, 2GB isn't unreasonable. I realize I do some heavier-duty stuff than grandma would, but in my experience it's always better to err on the side of "a bit too much" rather than "a bit too little" when giving a recommendation.
Seriously - 1GB ram (512MB for low end installs) seems like an awful lot to me....
Windows itself doesn't need all that RAM. But if you plan on running 4 or 5 major applications (Photoshop, iTunes, Firefox, Word, etc) simultaneously, you'd better at least have 1GB so as to avoid having to swap to disk/VM, which is when performance really starts to blow.
I generally recommend at least 2GB of RAM for anyone running Windows XP, just to avoid having to hit VM during common usage scenarios. It's not the OS that takes up all the RAM, it's the apps.
I for one will be glad to see Microsoft finally making the RAM requirement realistic and reasonable. When they released Windows 95 and said it would minimally run on something like 16MB of RAM, they didn't bother to mention that meant the system would be constantly swapfiling even before loading up any applications.
[The game's creator] said he wanted to create something profoundly unique and confrontational that would promote a real dialogue on the subject of school shootings.
I guess all these artistic types must think that flame wars, misplaced blame, and name-calling constitute "real dialogue".
One of the requirements that all these comparisons have is "It must be compatible with my Windows computer that I use at work". As long as the requirements spell out "Windows" rather than just functionality like word processing and whatever, then Windows will always have the advantage.
That may be a problem with Linux, but it's not the problem. The overarching problem with Linux is that it still requires too much time investment and too much technical knowledge in order to accomplish tasks that should be quick and simple.
Try getting 3D support working for your ATI or nVidia card so you can play 3D Linux games... in under 15 minutes, without having to consult a HOWTO, bring up the command line, or rely on deep technical understanding of X-config or linux kernal drivers. In the Windows world, you download and run a SETUP.EXE that installs the driver, it installs, you reboot once, and you're good to go in under 10 minutes.
Try getting a media player to play back WMV video files in Linux... in under 5 minutes, without having to consult a HOWTO, bring up the command line, or rely on deep technical understanding of the various media players and video libraries upon which they depend. In the Windows world, WMV support works right out of the box, and for any formats not supported out of the box, such as DivX, you just download and run a SETUP.EXE for the codec you need (if Windows Media Player doesn't auto-detect-and-download-and-install the codec for you, which it usually does anyway).
Try getting your new-fangled USB printer working under Linux... in under 10 minutes, without having to consult a HOWTO, bring up the command line, or rely on deep technical understanding of the various layers of the various Linux printing subsystems such as CUPS. In the Windows world, you download and run a SETUP.EXE for your printer, maybe reboot, and then you're good to go. In the Linux world, your printer probably isn't supported, but it might be partially supported by a few different ancient drivers, and since your printer isn't listed as a choice in any of the printer setup wizards, you have to try to manually get a driver working with your specific printer, and it's up to you to go through the trial and error process of trying all the different ancient drivers to see which one, if any, happens to somewhat work with your printer.
In short, until everything users commonly want to do in Linux involves nothing more complicated than "download and run the SETUP.EXE and it just works in under 10 minutes", there's no contest.
Now shut the fuck up and run adaware for your parents, you lazy, ungrateful bastard.
If you think that your choice to have kids somehow obligates your kids to you for the rest of their lives, then you have no business being a parent in the first place. Kids are not indentured servants -- they are human beings.
There are ample quotes by Bush and other members of his administration that clearly indicate their contempt for anyone who dares to criticize their policies or decisions. If you're too stupid to pay attention to the news and notice, that's your own shortcoming.
Slashdot Mirror
And what rights do YOU have in determining whether medical science can essentially keep your body alive, forever, no matter what happens to that "you?"
Every human being of sound mind and decision-making ability has, by simply existing, the natural right to do anything they want to their own body, including terminating their own lives. For anyone else to step in and question or deny that natural right is simply unethical and wrong.
It's not anyone else's place to second-guess or challenge the decision of a vegetative person who, before becoming vegetative, decided against being kept alive should such circumstances ever occur.
In cases where no such wish was ever expressed by a person before they became vegetative, it should fall to immediately family/parent/guardian to step in and make the judgment call, since they are of sound mind and can make a decision whereas the vegetative person cannot.
yo YEAH igotz sum g00d ideaz! impr0v1`ng dat litercy shiznat!~
Seriously... I think we need to work on basic literacy before computer literacy. Being able to communicate coherently using a computer starts with knowing the differences among "there", "their", and "they're" and between "your" and "you're". Learning simple rules of language, such as "every sentence must have nouns and at least one verb", would be a great start.
Sony contracted the writing of, and performed distribution of, malware that risked the security of countless systems and generated IT costs for businesses and individuals alike. They should get the same level of punishment that Kevin Mitnick got: the Sony execs should be held in prison for years pending trial, and they should be barred from going anywhere near a computer. And, they should have to pay compensation to all the businesses for all the damage they caused.
Anything less than that isn't holding them accountable for the extent of their evil.
I thought all he could do was write overhyped electronic music.
Someone desperately needs to mod the parent up.
Not every volunteer project needs to be released to the world. You could just keep it to yourself or share it among a limited group of friends. When you volunteer to put your work in front of other people, you are making yourself responsible to others for your work, like it or not. If you don't want that responsibility, then don't release your work.
Analogy: if you volunteer for Habitat for Humanity, and you do a shitty job of building your part of the house, and so it collapses and kills people, does the fact that you "volunteered" somehow mean you're not ethically responsible? I really don't think so. It's a different matter if you build your own house, do a crappy job, and it collapses on you, because in that case you're not hurting anyone else.
saving hundreds of millions of euros a year ...by switching to GEICO?
Along those lines, here's a specific idea: create a reality TV show that documents the fierce competition among potential astronaut candidates. Get people to grow familiar with and look up to astronauts once more. Show people first-hand what risky, intense, and inherently dramatic business the space program is. That's what gets people interested.
Start working on things that average people (e.g. non-scientists) can get behind.
The shuttle program and space station may be incredibly valuable to the scientific community for research purposes, but there's nothing about it that captures the imaginations and emotions and concern of the general public. I hate to break it to NASA, but there's really nothing you can do to make average people excited about nerdy harcore scientific research.
That's the difference between today's NASA and the old JFK-era NASA.
You geek types out there may say, "but NASA isn't a popularity contest, it's a scientific endeavor". But you have to remember who funds NASA: ordinary taxpayers.
or how can it be delusional when so many people are suffering the same symptoms including pulling weird strands of fiber from their skin?
That's like asking, "How can Santa Claus not exist if so many children believe he does?"
There's been no hard evidence presented anywhere, in all the info and articles I've read about this online, that the fibers patients present are anything other than common microscopic bits of lint from their own clothing.
I believe that some patients have brought in fiber samples, and that some doctors have thoroughly evaluated them under electronic microscopes, etc. But look at the photos (note the microscopic scale) and think about the observed composition of the fibers (cellulose? as in plant organic cell materials? as in what you would expect to find in cotton or any other plant-derived cloth?).
There are many different, independet axes of development models that often get confused with one another during debates like this:
1) top-down versus bottom-up
2) commercial versus non-commercial
3) closed-source versus open-source
4) open-source versus GNU-defined "free software"
Please remember that these are all different axes. It's entirely possible to have top-down non-commercial "free software" development, just as it's entirely possibly to have bottom-up commercial closed-source development.
I think the Microsoft rep's statement confused "commercial" with "top-down". It's generally true that top-down development results in a clearer, more dependable plan and better-architected, more coherent software.
Why should we assume Microsoft or any OS maker (cause others have been guilty too) are printing realistic reqs that are based on OS + apps when more than two decades of desktop computing say otherwise?
Well, I'm not assuming. I'm a Microsoft employee and I'm running weekly builds of Vista on a secondary box here in my office. My personal, nonscientific observation (not an official statement from my employer, mind you) is that it (running without the 3D desktop stuff, since my machine doesn't have a capable 3D board) seems not to require anything more hardware-intensive than what XP requires. Then again, I don't use a lot of the added crap... er, features... like the sidebar and widgets and newer start menu with search functionality, so maybe that helps.
I'd guess that Vista builds will get more optimized, not less, as it approaches release. So I'm not too worried.
When web browsing with Firefox, I tend to average in the ballpark of 20-30 tabs open (I open every article from every news site in a new tab, and then make use of session saving to eventually read through all the articles I stuck in a tab because they were of interest to me). When using Photoshop, it's typically to scan/edit photos at high-resolution (say, 800 dpi, 48-bit resolution). When using VirtualDub, it's typically to edit and recompress MPEG2 files recorded from my TV capture card to DivX+MP3 format AVI files. All of that kind of stuff simultaneously eats up a lot of RAM. I always have anti-spyware, anti-virus, and intelligent disk-defragmenter software monitoring in real-time. I keep MSN Messenger running just about all the time.
So yeah, 2GB isn't unreasonable. I realize I do some heavier-duty stuff than grandma would, but in my experience it's always better to err on the side of "a bit too much" rather than "a bit too little" when giving a recommendation.
Just a note to our current administration - Orwell did not intend 1984 to be a how-to.
Well, duh. 1984 is well written and requires no prior UNIX expertise -- it's obviously not a HOWTO.
Seriously - 1GB ram (512MB for low end installs) seems like an awful lot to me....
Windows itself doesn't need all that RAM. But if you plan on running 4 or 5 major applications (Photoshop, iTunes, Firefox, Word, etc) simultaneously, you'd better at least have 1GB so as to avoid having to swap to disk/VM, which is when performance really starts to blow.
I generally recommend at least 2GB of RAM for anyone running Windows XP, just to avoid having to hit VM during common usage scenarios. It's not the OS that takes up all the RAM, it's the apps.
I for one will be glad to see Microsoft finally making the RAM requirement realistic and reasonable. When they released Windows 95 and said it would minimally run on something like 16MB of RAM, they didn't bother to mention that meant the system would be constantly swapfiling even before loading up any applications.
Is it too soon to release Windows Vista? Just to promote dialogs, you know...
[The game's creator] said he wanted to create something profoundly unique and confrontational that would promote a real dialogue on the subject of school shootings.
I guess all these artistic types must think that flame wars, misplaced blame, and name-calling constitute "real dialogue".
In theory, whatever works in theory works in practice. In practice, this is not always the case.
One of the requirements that all these comparisons have is "It must be compatible with my Windows computer that I use at work". As long as the requirements spell out "Windows" rather than just functionality like word processing and whatever, then Windows will always have the advantage.
That may be a problem with Linux, but it's not the problem. The overarching problem with Linux is that it still requires too much time investment and too much technical knowledge in order to accomplish tasks that should be quick and simple.
Try getting 3D support working for your ATI or nVidia card so you can play 3D Linux games... in under 15 minutes, without having to consult a HOWTO, bring up the command line, or rely on deep technical understanding of X-config or linux kernal drivers. In the Windows world, you download and run a SETUP.EXE that installs the driver, it installs, you reboot once, and you're good to go in under 10 minutes.
Try getting a media player to play back WMV video files in Linux... in under 5 minutes, without having to consult a HOWTO, bring up the command line, or rely on deep technical understanding of the various media players and video libraries upon which they depend. In the Windows world, WMV support works right out of the box, and for any formats not supported out of the box, such as DivX, you just download and run a SETUP.EXE for the codec you need (if Windows Media Player doesn't auto-detect-and-download-and-install the codec for you, which it usually does anyway).
Try getting your new-fangled USB printer working under Linux... in under 10 minutes, without having to consult a HOWTO, bring up the command line, or rely on deep technical understanding of the various layers of the various Linux printing subsystems such as CUPS. In the Windows world, you download and run a SETUP.EXE for your printer, maybe reboot, and then you're good to go. In the Linux world, your printer probably isn't supported, but it might be partially supported by a few different ancient drivers, and since your printer isn't listed as a choice in any of the printer setup wizards, you have to try to manually get a driver working with your specific printer, and it's up to you to go through the trial and error process of trying all the different ancient drivers to see which one, if any, happens to somewhat work with your printer.
In short, until everything users commonly want to do in Linux involves nothing more complicated than "download and run the SETUP.EXE and it just works in under 10 minutes", there's no contest.
I feel extremely sorry for your children.
Now shut the fuck up and run adaware for your parents, you lazy, ungrateful bastard.
If you think that your choice to have kids somehow obligates your kids to you for the rest of their lives, then you have no business being a parent in the first place. Kids are not indentured servants -- they are human beings.
Something long allowed under US copyright legislation
What crack are you smoking? Ever since the DMCA was passed, this has been effectively outlawed in the US.
Just the fact that they are having to perform damage control means it hasn't gone over well with most people.
Just like the fact that Nintendo had to perform damage control on the name "Wii" means the name didn't go over well with most people.
Duh.
You dip a camel... or llama... in your coffee and somehow that tells you (A) whether it's hot, and (b) whether it's caffeinated?
I can't understand a word you're saying. Hold on while I stick this fish in my ear.
Think about how complicated a car is.
Think about how difficult it must be to design something that complex.
Computer programming is thousands of times more complicated than that.
There are ample quotes by Bush and other members of his administration that clearly indicate their contempt for anyone who dares to criticize their policies or decisions. If you're too stupid to pay attention to the news and notice, that's your own shortcoming.